The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Modern Military Rifles Opinions on the M14 rifle..?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Opinions on the M14 rifle..? | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
I love mine, bought it surplus in 1988.. I used the G3 rifle a lot during military service ( in and out of the army for many years..) The G3 is good but I find the M14 faster and more instinctive to shoot. The trigger pull on the M14 is also far superior to the G3 and FN FAL too.. Mine is also very accurate with norwegian army surplus ammo. | ||
|
One of Us |
You obviously don't live in the US; M14s are all full auto and were not sold as surplus. But yes, the M14 was an old school wood and steel, battle rifle. Obsolete for military use for several reasons. We can only have newly made, semi auto clones. Of which there are many. I have built many of them on various makes of receivers and GI parts. Which are no longer available either, but commercial parts are. Great rifles. But I like the FN FAL too. G3: just a stamped cheap to make, rifle, that does work. I have a semi auto version of that too. | |||
|
| one of us |
Well the M14 was selective fire. Don't know anything about the G3 or the FN AL. I did think that there were some not selective fire M14 sold at first, and I think I have read that the DOD retained a large number in reserve and some were issued to seals and special forces. And to selected marine riflemen. But my memory is vague about it. I did shoot the M14 a lot Full auto and semi. I really liked it. Much more lethal than the M4. However I don't have one and never wanted to buy one. I have FNAR with a 16 inch barrel and a Smith and Wesson AR10 clone. | |||
|
One of Us |
I love shooting an M1A. USAF Story: I was stationed at Offutt AFB in Omaha Nebraska. It is SAC HQ. in 1981 my family took vacation and drove out to see me. I asked Pop to buy me an M1A. Believe it or not I could not find one locally. He did. I had to keep it in the armory on base, since I lived in the dorms. The armory was on the flight line in a hangar building. The first time I checked it in I was floored. All the MP's and Guards carried Shorty M16's. BUT in the armory I could see 4 double decker 16ft long racks of M14's. I asked if I could swap mine. That at least got a good laugh. There had to be 250 - m14s'. | |||
|
| One of Us |
There were no semi auto only M14s made. All were select fire, albeit the selector was removed and a lock installed on most of them. And since the US rule is, once a machine gun, always, so even though you could permanently deactivate one by cutting off the selector leg, it couldn't legally be done, so none were sold. I heard a few got out to rifle teams, but I can't confirm that. I actually still have the weapons card for the one I was issued. I never got rid of any documents. The Army still used M14s in Afghanistan and they were converted with Sage stocks and issued from TACOM at Rock Island. I was in Tank Armament, but I saw the small arms guys do it, about ten years ago. The FN FAL and the G3 were also select fire. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You actually can buy an M—14. You have to go through a Class 3 dealer with a more aggressive background check and pay the NFA Tax of 200 dollars. | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
one of us |
When I was shooting a lot of high power competitively in the 1980s, I had the loan of one with a semi-auto trigger group and the selector welded in the semi-auto position from the Colorado State Rifle and Pistol Association. The DCM would issue M14s to state associations for member use. I also had a match grade M1A of my own. When I earned my distinguished I sold the M1A and turned in the M14. One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know. - Groucho Marx | |||
|
One of Us |
TRW made 7600 semi auto only M 14's for cross the course target shooting, only one is still in civilian hands. In the 80's it was very common that the State rifle & pistol associations had Govt. owned m14's for loan to the team shooters. Michigan had 6 and turned them back in to the Govt. in the early 2000's. All had a cap silver soldered on, in place of the selector switch. The team members would also get ammo supplied by the Govt. | |||
|
| One of Us |
There is no such thing as a "semi auto only" M14. ALL were made as select fire, and are considered as such by the Govt. Doesn't matter what you do to the selector switch; even cutting the leg off does not count: once a MG, always an MG, is the law. Yes, TRW did make National Match rifles; but they are all classified as select fire/full auto. | |||
|
| One of Us |
best combat rifle ever and yes there were a few selective ones issued | |||
|
| one of us |
That is why the M16 plat form out lasted it in general use by decades. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Did the M16 beat the M14 because it’s a better rifle, or because the doctrine and needs changed? The M16 is lighter, with less weight per round of ammo carried. The M16 is much more controllable in full auto fire. Accuracy is a wash in the iron sights, but the M16 is much more adaptable to alternate sighting systems. The M14 is much better at terminal damage, penetration, and range. If I had to kill something, the m14 is better, IMO; but if I had to soldier- carry it, use it to suppress, etc, then the M16 is better. Fundamentally it’s what role the weapon is tasked for, and how closely the one performs to need. | |||
|
One of Us |
The ship’s self defense force I was on used the M14. We’d qualify by shooting across the width of the fantail of the ship. MAYBE 40’ shooting at a miniature silhouette outline of a man. They never allowed us to give full auto a try unfortunately. I grew to love that rifle and have looked at buying an M1 several times but never took the plunge. Might still get one. | |||
|
One of Us |
I think it's hysterical the way so many think that the M16 is better than the m14, which incidentally is still in use. All the BS about the m14 being outdated and too heavy. Methinks somebody needs a little more protein in their diet. I remember when the M16 came out, the guys in Nam HATED it! They wanted their m14's back. It was weak and unreliable and they got their asses handed to them by AK 47's vs the new wonder weapon. They claimed that "it is better to wound the other guy" while our guys were getting wasted. The truth is it was cheaper to make and supply ammunition for the m16. Better rifle my arse. AK-47 The only Communist Idea that Liberals don't like. | |||
|
| one of us |
The early Vietnam experience with M-16 was ugly. The early ammo burned dirty and the city boys didn't take the time to clean their weapons properly. An early version M-16 when dirty was a disaster. No forward assist to get a partially chambered round fully into the chamber and no effective means to extract it. The forward assist addressed one of those issues, but there still isn't a way to put a boot on the op rod to extract a case like the M14 and M1 Garand. For punching paper in DCM matches, the M16/AR-15 is much easier to shoot accurately with the current ammunition. It could be me, but shooting the 200 yd. OH stage I thought the M16/AR-15 was much more forgiving if you got aggressive with the trigger. The lower recoil 5.56 cartridge made the rapid fire stages much easier to complete with accuracy. However, this only occurred after the forward sling mount was moved off the barrel. Before that, the POI changes caused by sling tension changes made precision shooting difficult. Which is the better choice for combat, that depends on the situation. If your crashing doors and sweeping a room, the lower recoil of the 5.56 round works exceptionally well. If you're engaging targets at 200m or more, the extra energy and momentum of the 7.62 round is advantageous. John in Oregon | |||
|
| one of us |
For you M-14 lovers read the development history. You will find a lot changes to the basic rifle before it was accepted even after. | |||
|
One of Us |
Bought a Like new M1A back in the early 90's that looked like the guy never got around to shooting it. Trw bolt H&R barrel and I forget who made the other parts. Shoots well, is easy to hit with ising the issue sights and always a favorite with whoever I let shoot it. 350 Legend, imitation is the highest form of flattery. Aww, Thanks Winchester! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Reading this post from the UK - we can only dream about shooting such rifles. They took away our ability to own and shoot any self loading rifles in the 1990’s. We can still use a .22 rimfire semi, but anything centrefire is not allowed. We are allowed straight pulls, even spring assisted, and in the club there are several who have such rifles. Pulling and releasing a charging handle between each shot rather defeats the point. But a strong interest in bolt action military rifles, right from the earliest Enfields to the latest Accuracy Internationals in all calibres up to the 338 Lapua. | |||
|
| one of us |
So far we have held the anti's off in most of the country. I have owned and shot most of the semi-auto versions of the worlds military rifles. Kept the ones I like and sold the ones I haven't. We are still working hard at fighting the anti's. If you ever happen to be in the US. I would gladly let you shoot some. | |||
|
| One of Us |
And if that's not a helpful endorsement for the NRA, I don't know what is. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I had a full auto licensed/ tax stamped M-14 for a while. It was a hoot for a while. In my hands it was totally uncontrollable on full auto. Sold it after the novelty wore off. I then got a M1A. It is the most fun center fire rifle I have. It is certainly more accurate than I am and it has never failed to feed and fire. I have over the years shot it more than 1000 rounds. they a re just great guns to won and shoot. If you own a gun and you are not a member of the NRA and other pro 2nd amendment organizations then YOU are part of the problem. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ok, a few facts to round out all the nonsense. The early M16 did not have a chrome lined barrel, and the 5.56 was developed to use ball powder. Some idiot in the US developmental area, and I do not know the exact one, changed the powder to IMR, which was dirtier. Added to that was the promotion that the M16 was self cleaning, and in fact, cleaning rods were not even issued; all this led to some early disasters. The M16A2 fixed these issues and that is reliable. As for the M14, it was a relic of mid 20th century design, and was obsolete before it was fielded. Full auto M14? 90% of them were locked on semi auto; we had good belt fed machine guns at the squad level so the infantryman did not need full auto. It is not inferior to the AK in any way; but the AK is more forgiving for untrained soldiers. Now, fast forward; the 5.56 will not penetrate Chinese body armor, so were are adopting a new 6.8mm (270), steel case head, very high pressure, and all of them will have suppressors. And a 338 belt fed MG too. I never worked in US Army small arms, (I was in Armor, and later, Tank Armament), but I did see all this happen. And I taught it at Ft Leavenworth. (Not the Big House). Comamnd and General Staff College. I still have my M14 weapons card. I feel sorry for you guys in England. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Before my time, but every infantry type I know of did not consider the M60 all that reliable a MG. I don’t hear many complain about the M240. I did hear some guys complain about the .50 in that they were given really old ammo and had a fair number of FTF. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The M60 was a very reliable machine gun, for the Infantry, and for the UH1 door gunners. The M240, which we had on our tanks as the coax mg, and the loader's weapon, is an excellent weapon. It is a totally different design from the M60, which has a rotating bolt, whereas the M240 is basically an upside down BAR. As for the 50 cal; if you mean the M2, which is still used on Abrams tanks as the commander's weapon, those are absolutely without flaw. New ones even have barrels that do not need headspacing. The best 50 ammo I have is 1943 AP. Now, the M85 50 cal, which we had on our M60A3s, were ok, but not as good as the M2. Another MG we used was also designed by US engineers at Picatinny Arsenal. The M73/M219 7.63, which was our coax on the M60 series. Total junk; stoppages were common. I took many of them down range in Tank Gunnery, and when we got the M240, it was like the clouds parted and sunlight came down on us for the first time. Don't get me wrong; the M14 was and is a great rifle; just, doctrinally, not good for modern combat. We (TACOM: I worked for them too), converted many of them for use in Afghanistan, by installing them into Sage Chassis stocks; but not for the average soldier. I was in Tank Armament then; I wouldn't work in small arms. Too many experts there. | |||
|
| One of Us |
bought a blackfeather chassis with a mossberg magpul buttstock socket, still haven't used it. | |||
|
Moderator |
Yes sir, it CAN be fired in semi, however, the critical portion of "selective fire" is that one of the selections is auto - which the ATF defines as a machine gun, and once a machine gun, in the past, it meant it couldn't be changed back. opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Correct; one a machine gun, always a machine gun, which means they can't be sold to the public like M1s are. And most all M14s had the selectors pinned and blocked in the semi position because they are very hard to control in auto fire. Even if deactivated, which they can easily be by cutting the selector leg off the receiver. Now, some were transferred by the CMP to shooters by mistake before the ATF stepped in and stopped them. Very few are in civilian hands and they can't be transferred. I was surprised they didn't make owners return them. And yes, the Army still has some in inventory. TACOM manages them, as they do all small arms. | |||
|
One of Us |
The FN FAL was the right arm of the free world. The G3 was a close second. The M14 was not even in the running. Not even the left arm. All were eclipsed by the AK-47. Kalashnikov rewrote the anatomy book. Mike Wilderness is my cathedral, and hunting is my prayer. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I guess in Canada we were more fortunate at one time, hard to believe, an M14 could be converted to a semi auto only by milling off the selector switch leg, so some were sold here, I believe they came from Israel. A lot of other goodies well, but then the law changed. When the horse has been eliminated, human life may be extended an average of five or more years. James R. Doolitle I think they've been misunderstood. Timothy Tredwell | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yes Canada law is different; in those years, now 30 years ago, we imported the parts kits from Israel, on which I built many semi autos, but the receivers were all destroyed. MR; just read your analysis, to which I do not agree at all. Infantry doctrine cannot place any of the full caliber rifles into the same tactical category as the AK series. Like comparing apples to tomatoes. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I read an article where the author opined that the opinion of a weapon's reliability depends very much on where in the weapon's life cycle the person with the opinion served. Most start off with some niggles, get iterated until they are good, but by the time the weapons are retracted from the service they have been used hard for far too long and most have become unreliable. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The best 7.62mm MG we have, by far, is the M240. Which is basically a BAR with the locking mechanism upside down. And since that was designed by Browning (and made into a MG by FN) and not some engineer at Picatinny Arsenal, it works superbly. We had them on our tanks; totally reliable. Previous to that we had the M73/M219; which was a total POS and would not fire 100 rounds without jamming. And tanks hold 3000 rounds. | |||
|
One of Us |
As a combat Special Forces officer leading US and Montagnards in Indo China (Laos, Vietnam) , the 7.62 M-14 worked in a defensive setting. Both the Army and Marine Corps found it too heavy for what it delivered. I carried the rarer CAR-15-reliable. The M-16 had powder issues in the 5.56 rounds initially, AMC should have tested W-W ball powder much more than it did. Dirty chambers and no bolt-assists damned the first rifles. Marines were KIA trying to clean their rifles and make them function in 1967. The G3 and M240 were excellent, but for the conditions faced in the 1960s, the M-60 was a serviceable MG. Both the Army and USMC should have maintained more frequent rear level overhaul and replacement of rifles. As far back as Chosin Reservoir in 1950, the most reliable infantry weapons were the M-1 Garand and the 1911 Govt Model 45 ACP. The Browning MGs all functioned reasonably well considering the -30 F temperatures. The .30 cal carbine was then and has always been a poor performer. Cold temps and Chinese quilted uniforms further weakened an anemic round in an unreliable platform. They jammed badly in Korea. AMC and the other governmental providers should be required to deliver the best fighting weapons available. An example: the RPG 7 and its descendants worked. Our LAW was underpowered and required perfect storage. The answer is to copy the RPG technology and make them in Taiwan, as SF did so many other weapons with MACVSOG. Then the Reds can sue the Taiwan folks for patent infringement-not likely. Avatar | |||
|
one of us |
Standard issue on Submarines in the 70's and 80's. I was ship's rifleman for man overboard and swim calls and spent many hours sitting on top of the sail with an M14 and a cigarette. Frank "I don't know what there is about buffalo that frightens me so.....He looks like he hates you personally. He looks like you owe him money." - Robert Ruark, Horn of the Hunter, 1953 NRA Life, SAF Life, CRPA Life, DRSS lite | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Modern Military Rifles Opinions on the M14 rifle..?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia